PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

Just click on the bottom right quote. Just beside the like.

 

For PVP to make it balanced what if for consensual PVP outside the PVP zones players could choose to fight with one hand tied behind their back lowering stats some. Sorta like a handicap in golf to make matches fair. Or they would use

less armor so that less skilled opponents would have atleast some chance at winning.

I've said before in forums I think the "lucky strike, lucky hit, or lucky punch" what ever you call it should give newer players atleast a chance at winning in PVP

combat. You ever hear of beginner's luck.

 

I like this idea very much. I think the posse should still be under the can get some items looted and some back through ransom policy

 

If the Pk'er is caught by the posse perhaps they could be hung at the town gallows for one hour game time?

 

On the other hand, the opposite also exist in that many PvPers do not RP, use weak excuses for their actions and quite often don't even abide to the spirit of the game environment they PvP in. Mob rule is the norm.

This, over much else is one of the things that turn off many PvErs from partaking in the PvP world of many games.

Not saying that it is the majority of players, but enough to cause the reticence.

MHO - although you don't have to agree:

On the question of looting - As it appear that the game will involve item stats, Portalanium really has little choice but to restrict redistribution (corpse looting), and protect, players investments. Not to do so is inviting disaster unfortunately as since the design of item stats also require levelled content.

 

It's never a good idea to take "TIME" away from a player. Even an evil character. It's different if you're trying to ban someone for slinging racial slurs or hacking into the game. But when the evil guys are really just "other players" trying to have fun, then you don't want them kicked out of the game anymore than you would anyone else.

Instead of having someone stuck somewhere they didn't want to be, like a public hanging. I'd recommend that the evil outlaw types get choices much like a good player that was looted. Get captured by a bounty hunter? Either do X or pay a crazy inflated ransom. Eventually the economic incentive will make a player choose X because they either run out of money, or they don't want to lose it all. Btw, X would be a mechanic that allowed the player to continue to play, while maybe not being able to effectively perform the same actions as before.

 

Community service?

 

I like your idea of open loot on consumables but I think(if you read one of my posts on this subject)

-that one items should be blessed like in UO

-some for ransom and or a body part(you would be given the option you may keep your sword for example 50 gold and your left ear or 1000 gold)

-the other items should be up for looting also artifacts would be looted first or the most valuable item to keep a market for valuable items(this artifact could be kept at the cost of a hand which would lower your skills for a predertermined amount of time)

 

I can see it now, the worst PK's would be painting fences and picking up digital trash.

It could be anything I suppose, as long as players can opt out by paying the fine to avoid it.

 

I very much like what you said here. Khalissi!!! Noone should be untouchable. read my posts about one blesed item, some ransom, and artifacts and consumables would be lootable. So for power you could have one really good item

but risk the other powerful items if you decide to take them into PVP with you. If you wanna be better than the average PVPer you would need to bring more than one artifact but this by no means should make them untouchable even at the risk

of carrying such good weaponry.

 

Re: Blessed items
I haven't played UO so I'm not sure how that works but per your description, it seems counterproductive to the goals of risking items. If something is so valuable that a player does not want it to be looted, then the player shouldn't carry it into a PVP zone whether it is a weapon, armor, or a lucky rabbit's foot. What blessing does is take away the incentive for revenge PVP. If I lost something so valuable with little chance of every getting it back, I would want to punish the one who looted it from me, even to the point where they finally give it back as a peace offering. Now I'm not really a PVP'r but I like RP-PVP and having incentives like plotting and executing revenge missions to win back a coveted item makes for great entertainment (at least to me) and makes much more sense than a random kill.

 

I don't care what this poll or any other poll says full loot should only be if it is a duel between players and they agree to risk it kinda like betting gear or a million gold in arena in UO. In non consentual PVP in PVP areas to many people will quit the game or never go back if they get dry looted. Getting all my gear looted in UO caused me to spend many years in the PVE only realm of UO. Read my replys on the subject some gear lootable, some ransom, and one macially protected. This I think is the best "middle ground" for the PVP looting discussion period
-pks get some loot
-some reason to pvp other than for the fun of it
- this system will make it so the rich don't dominate the game and get people coming back for more pvp if they only have to replace one item at a time
-someone said in reply a posse could have an hour to hunt down the pk to get the one item back for revenge
- I also liked someones idea about less skilled players would have less risk of losing items
I apologize if i didn't quote you right or say your names but these last two points were someone elses ideas in this thread reply

 

I like the Trophies aspect and taking peoples ears!

 

Well, the whole problem the developers are trying to solve is that people will always be going out with their junk gear and leave their good gear in the bank, since they're too afraid to lose it.

Personally, I'm not sure how much of a problem it really is that people save their rares for special occasions. That seems like realistic behavior. Aside from that, people won't choose to go naked as long as death gives such a sufficient sting that if they have a choice in the matter, they'd choose not to die. Even if they won't equip their best gear, they'll choose to get decent gear, at any rate, rather than go naked, because it would give them a better chance to live. Plus, looting can be throttled simply by giving players realistic carry weight. People who want to get away with a lot of loot without dropping their own gear will be putting burdens on themselves.

But @Abydos had a nice suggestion, which was to flip the ransom system around. Make it full loot to start off with, but allow players to do a type of minor blessing on items. It wouldn't safeguard the item beyond death, but it would allow it to be subject to a ransom.

 

To add to this Wild West idea a PK'er who ratchets up 50 (add number) or more kills gets their name on a notice board in towns for a Bounty on their heads and a Icon over their Avatar of say a Red Skull to identify them to others, Once killed they lose this rank.

 

it would be cool if the volcano shot hot lava and rocks scattering the battlefield so we would have to look out for that as well and not get hit by it!

 

Just for u my friend :


An idea for ransom.

• To avoid having a game too easy.
• To meet people who do not want to lose their equipment and those who want to lose their equipment.
• To give importance to the gear and not too mush imporance to the gear.
• To promote a dynamic economy without making it fall.
• To create the fear of loss and create trust in the loss.

I propose that the ransoms are linked to predefined objects. A soulbound like with a RP side.

The player could protect 1, 2 or 3 items with the ransom system. (Maybe a quest could give the right to use the Ransoms.)

It would allow us to use our best weapons without fear to lose them.
It would allow us not to live a system too focused on the Gear.

Again, PvE players would not risk anything into the PvP. Its a consensual.
And PvPlayers could live a good dose of adrenaline. Its a consensual.

Protect our object with we have a particularly intense relationship is important thing for a lot of people. (not for me, I am looking for a reasonable solution).

I would like to have the point of Chris on this proposal

 

But isn't the experience debt supposed to de-incentivize folks from wearing junk armor and using junk weapons because they will need some measure of appropriate gear to stay alive?

As to throttling looting, yeah, I agree on encumbrance and if encumbrance can translate over to things like movement speed and attack speed and defense rating, well, then you make for a challenging game where it doesn't matter if there is full loot because what will matter is prudent looting. Either way, I'm not holding my breath on that one (but it would be cool!).

 

How about have PVP gear and PVE gear.
You go into a PVP area and you auto switch into PVP gear and vice versa.
All consumables and PVP gear can be looted.
PVE gear will never be seen in PVP so it won't matter anyways.
Keep the one item loot for PVE creatures looting you.

 

That's what DS tried to push at first, but there was plenty of pushback against it. I think in his model, there was whichever mode you were killed in PVE or PVP determined which type of gear was looted.

 

Why not? I am not an avid PvP person (rather indifferent either way, I don't enjoy it, but can see it's place in the whole), but don't see a difference in a guild doing PvE and supporting eachother that way, or 2 guilds warring (PvP) doing the same...

I think there is more common ground than most realize...